The lack of logic that encompasses this joint

[_brade]

If any of those possibilities were true, it would mean the Book of Mormon is not what the church has claimed it is for the last 170 years. You are, in typical mopologetic fashion, moving the goalposts again. Yes, anything is possible if by "possible" you simply invoke an ad hoc miracle rationalization. It's possible the Flying Spaghetti Monster took deutero-Isaiah when it was written in Palestine and with his noodly appendage deposited those writings onto the Brass Plates using a time machine and magical marinara sauce etched the words in Reformed Egyptian into the metal so that Nephi could include them in the record that Joseph Smith would, millennia later, translate with his rock-in-hat trick. You can't prove it didn't happen that way, so it's possible it did. Of course, it's also possible that you are a raving idiot (I'm not saying you are, just that there is very little evidence to disprove the proposition).

Here's a possibility, in the sense of metaphysical possibility that stem is invoking here:

[_stemelbow]

Rather than having us provide you with proof, after which you will provide a link to a FARMS article, beginning a debate on one issue that has been hashed out forever, why don't you tell us what evidence would disprove the church for you.

I don't see the point in that. And, its not an easy thing to do. Too hypothetical. I could say something but if that something really was the case there might be a reason I find that does not satisfy proof. Its not up to me to do your homework.

Obviously you believe other religions have been proven false.

What?

What evidence led you to the conclusion that others are false and the LDS church is true, and what evidence would convince you the LDS church is false?

I don't really say other religions are false. That's not a type of vocabulary I use. I don't know what exactly that would mean. Indeed, i would say, without hesitation, that probably all religions hold truths. That's not to say they are false.

[_Buffalo]

Saying "there is no god" isn't quite the same as disbelief in God. But atheism is just disbelief. And atheist may well say that it's possible that there is god - there just isn't enough evidence to convince me that it's so.

What you just said is what agnostic as defined as. The word atheist is used today to describe one who does not believe in God--not one who thinks its possible there is a God. I think you should read Shermer's book. Anyway, my whole point here is to describe how the very well articulated position of Shermer also seems to be a pertinent analogy of how discussion goes here.

Stem, it's obvious you don't really understand the terms atheist and agnostic. Most atheists are also agnostic. They're not mutually exclusive. I absolutely do not believe in god, but I don't rule out the possibility that there might be one.

Church leadership have long said that the church stands or falls on the Book of Mormon. Deutero-Isaiah on the brass plates has the same effect as would be Beatles lyrics on the brass plates - it's an anachronism so large and startling that it discredits the document completely.

There are far too many possibilities in this that you are not considering. Who knows if Joseph Smith was inspired to think the deutero Isaiah parts ought to be included? Its God's work. If He decides to use deutero Isaiah to describe the messages that the Nephites relied on in their brass plates then its his decision, for instance. Or perhaps Joseph Smith got lazy at a few points and copied, essentially parts of the Bible but the rest was some pretty good translation of the original Nephite record? Or perhaps Deutero Isaiah is based off a manuscript the pre-existed it. In other words, what you claim as proof really isn't proof. You should read Shermer's book though. He covers this stuff too.

You're talking about Joseph Smith falsifying the Book of Mormon narrative in order to include Deutero-Isaiah. Think about that for a moment and what it says about the Book of Mormon as authentic scripture.

[_Buffalo]

no. Atheism holds the position that there is no God. This can be akin to a believer who holds the position that there is a God. That was Shermer's point. If you claim atheism then you are obligated to prove your position. Why? Because atheists premise is there true religion because religion can't be verified.



Not exactly.

not really. I am saying as per the discussion here. If you hold the position of critic--that is the Church is untrue, then you must prove that. As per Buffalo such proof is in the propisition that Deutero Isaiah is found int eh Book of Mormon. I don’t even see how that is proof of much of anything. It poses some interesting questions, sure, but proof? Not even close. In my mind his attempt to prove his claim is utter fail. He can’t support his position just as I can’t prove there is a God. But, unfortunately for him, his whole premise rests on the proposition of what he can prove. He must prove his claims because proof is all he has. He lacks the claim to faith (although he does rely on faith, he just doesn’t know it or recognize it).

Hope that helps. If not, we can try some more.

These comments are very problematic. You ignore the philosophic burden of proof, the mountain of evidence regarding my example, Deutero-Isaiah, and the role that anachronism plays in determining the authenticity or age of historical records.

Again, I'm reminded of Darth's "Gay Joseph" claim. If you don't believe it, per your logic, the burden of proof is on you to disprove it.

[_stemelbow]

Stem,

When you open with a salvo of mean-spirited attacks, such as titling your post, "The lack of logic that encompasses this joint" and then state, "This is quite like unto the whining exhibited here...", and you do so without provocation, that usually deserves a punch in the face.

Mean-spirited? Attack? Without Provocation? This all is a very dramatic and defensive way to view it. If you disagree that this joint, by and large, is accompanied by poor logic in most discussions then say so and address teh OP. I simply think people here have poor arguments and come, generally from a wrong perspective. If that offends you then cool. I meant no offense though. I simply am providing and argument. I didn't expect those who are so willing to dish out silly childish complaints about others are so touchy when their positions and MOs are addressed.

But since you aren't here to get punched in the face, do us a favour, will ya? This Friday, around 11PM, walk into your local watering hole, when the local sports team is playing on television, and tell the locals that they "lack logic" when cheering for the home town favourite, and follow that up with a, "You guys are a bunch of whiners, because the Leafs are down". And then do that a few times over. That should get you the punch in the face you deserve.

Wow. I deserve a punch in the face for questioning the efforts here? My goodness you are far too touchy to even discuss with, it seems. To compare this place to a group of guys cheering for a sports team is pretty apropos though. This is more of a complaining and cheering section.

See, we can't punch you in the face, so in lieu, we tell you to go f*** yourself, and call you an asshat, and f-tard. But you eat this up and in your arrogance, make declarations of your superiority with your down-home vocal affectations and hillbilly writing style. Well, keep at it, dummy, cuz every word uttered reminds us all (marg and marg's cronies excluded, wouldn't want to speak for *everyone*, right marg?) what a horrible, s****y example of a human being you are.

Wow. You are sheer delight yourself.

Well, f*** you, stemelbow. I hope you have a s****y Christmas, and f*****g miserable New Years, and rotten life. May a sqaudron of herpes-riddled vaginas find their way to your groin.

Pep f*****g pep.

H.

I get a little disturbed by your personal vitriol towards me. I know you like to complain about MDD but you are by far worse than any poster over there, I’d say. I know your buds will disagree with me vehemently, but there is no comparison.

[_Equality]

no. Atheism holds the position that there is no God. This can be akin to a believer who holds the position that there is a God. That was Shermer's point. If you claim atheism then you are obligated to prove your position.

You are either misunderstanding or misrepresenting Shermer's point. He is responding to a particular definition of atheism that neither he nor most (I suspect) atheists hold. He is saying the word atheist is problematic because of morons like you who can't seem to wrap their heads around the idea that a lack of belief in a god or gods based on a lack of evidence for the same does NOT require proof in the same way that religious claims do. You have his position all twisted up in an effort to try to put dubious metaphysical claims on a level plane with skepticism about those claims. They are not equal positions and Shermer does not believe they are--he is pointing out that the common usage of the word atheist contributes to the very misunderstanding you continue to propagate here.

[_stemelbow]

Stemelbow:

1. You have stated, "The Church stands or falls on certain propisitions but not on all propisitions." viewtopic.php?f=1&t=21389&start=84 Please list the propositions on which the Church stands or falls.

I suppose in my mind had didn't have anything in particular. I just thought, for instance, that if there is no God then the church would probably fall. An exhaustive list? I don't know. No God, no Christ, No existing after death.

2. Please specify what, if anything, Joseph Smith could have done that would make him cease to be a prophet.

I suppose a number of things. eating your child might meet the demands.

3. Two 20 year-old boys come to your house and tell you that they have a sacred book that has a divine message from God. The book says that we should be honest and virtuous, that we should treat other people kindly. However, the book is based on the premise that Rodney Dangerfield is a Martian who became the President of the United States. The boys tell you to pray about the book. You read some parts from the book about kindness and compassion to others, pray about it, and feel very strongly that God wants us to act the way the book tells us to. A couple days later, you tell the two boys that you had this experience. The boys tell you this is proof that the book is a true story. Should you now accept as fact the proposition that Rodney Dangerfield was a Martian who became the President of the United States?

Nah.

4. There is no conclusive proof that Joseph Smith and Brigham Young did not have a homosexual relationship. Since this proposition has not been conclusively proven to be false, why shouldn't critics of the Church believe that it happened?

Believe whatever you want, mr. Deflective.

[_Equality]

Quote:
2. Please specify what, if anything, Joseph Smith could have done that would make him cease to be a prophet.


I suppose a number of things. eating your child might meet the demands.

But not damned your teenaged step-daughter, apparently.

Hey stem, Hasa Diga Eebowai has a lengthy post on page 4 of this thread dismantling your misrepresentations about what Shermer said. Care to respond to it? An apology to Shermer seems to be in order. You are either deliberately twisting his words or obtusely setting up a straw man. Which is it?

[_Chap]

Atheism holds the position that there is no God. This can be akin to a believer who holds the position that there is a God. That was Shermer's point. If you claim atheism then you are obligated to prove your position. Why? Because atheists premise is there true religion because religion can't be verified.

See my previous post, in which I tried to suggest you might like to adopt a more realistic position. But why bother scrolling up? Much of my position is summed up in the following questions:

If a kid of 16 years old asked you "Does Santa exist?" or "Does the Tooth Fairy exist?", then:

(a) Wouldn't you just answer "No, there is no Santa" or "No, there is no Tooth Fairy"?

(b) If the 16-year-old said "You shouldn't say that if you can't prove that Santa doesn't exist", or "You shouldn't say that if you can't prove that the Tooth Fairy doesn't exist", wouldn't you think he was being unreasonable?

(c) If the answers to (a) and (b) are both 'yes', why do you think the person who says "No" to the question "Does God exist" has a higher burden? How is the "God" question essentially different from the "Santa" and "Tooth Fairy" questions?

[_stemelbow]

You are either misunderstanding or misrepresenting Shermer's point. He is responding to a particular definition of atheism that neither he nor most (I suspect) atheists hold.[/qute]

He doesn't claim to be an atheist as you insist. He's explaining why he doesn't consider himself an atheist. to him atheism would be the propisiton that there is no God. Not the propisition that even though there could be a God he doesn't have any reason to accept that there is a God (which is agnosticism).

He is saying the word atheist is problematic because of morons like you who can't seem to wrap their heads around the idea that a lack of belief in a god or gods based on a lack of evidence for the same does NOT require proof in the same way that religious claims do. You have his position all twisted up in an effort to try to put dubious metaphysical claims on a level plane with skepticism about those claims. They are not equal positions and Shermer does not believe they are--he is pointing out that the common usage of the word atheist contributes to the very misunderstanding you continue to propagate here.

I'll re-read the pertinent section again, just for you. It was about 10 years or so ago that I first read that and as I was pondering I remembered it yesterday popped it open as I rode on the train and had some memories refreshed. It was a somewhat brief perusal. But its clear to me you are wrong in labeling him an atheist and wrong that his point is as you describe.